POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

"The so called live shots were achieved by utilizing a broadcast delay to modify the feed with superimpositions of fake plane images."

Is your hypothesis similar or different to the argument in September Clues?

To utilize the plural "live shots" is not apropriate, there was just ONE liveshot of something like a jetliner discernable.http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...opic=9911&st=33Don't ask the FfG, he has been exposed to do the distracting propaganda with his untrue "Mach 1 exceeded" allegations in case of the "UA175" and so he is no longer among us - at least not under the nick Factfinder General.

The other pictures in the post have been taken down so i dont get so see what the comparisons were...but if you take a look at the plane in the above link...and then take a look at This then its clear that its not the same plane. the AA175 has a blue belly..the plane in the entering the building has a silver belly.

thx for that link WD!I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

No matter what the resolution, the clear blue sky makes it very easy to insert objects into the original image. The photoshopped images below only took a few minutes to make and would have been even easier, if I had the original cut out for the plane. Instead I had to pop out the plane from the rest of the picture and since I didn't want to spend a lot of time cleaning it up, my edges aren't exactly perfect, but they're close enough for government work.

Then I flattened the whole thing and embossed it. Neat effect but it doesn't prove if the plane in the original image was real or not. Once you flatten an image, it makes it very hard to tell whether or not something was added.

Unfortunately, I had to reduce the images a lot to be able to upload them to Photobucket. If anyone is interested I can provide copies of the doctored images that are at the original resolution. Even with zooming in, you can't tell the difference between the plane in the original and the ones I created.

PS: This doesn't not mean I support anyone else's assertions about what did or did not hit WTC 2. I'm just trying to show how easy it was for the originial image to be faked.

I feel I should say it straight:The title of the above video is misleading on purpose.It's a parody (of the titles and styles) of so called "no plane" videos. The "manifesto" takes a lot of claims (e.g. from "September Clues" and similar) and shows the nonsense behind that.